Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

robertmlee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#101

Post by Natsu »

specialist wrote: post #90
Natsu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a long list of stuff here: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ The press never covered most of it because a lot of the leaks are things that make them look bad. For example, Glenn Thrush: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681 > No worries > Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains > to u > Please don't share or tell anyone I did this > Tell me if I fucked up an…

Upvote for link. I had ignored the wikileaks stuff, like I ignored most of the election cycle, because I ignore most current events. But it was time to take a peek to see what everyone got excited about. I just randomly picked links and citations. Sorry, but I didn't find any there there. (I skipped the secret email server, mostly because I don't care.) Just one example, in #6 its clear from context that Bill Ivey's…

The secret email server is actually more interesting than you think. They found hundreds of emails containing classified info (including TS info, like a picture of NK that one of the media guys talks about in the dump). We also have an email between Hillary & Colin Powell discussing how to subvert the Presidential Records Act.

Read the PDF on here for more: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

This is part of what Colin Powell said that I think it especially illustrative of how big of a security risk people like this are when put in power:

Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#102

Post by bobwaycott »

corey_moncure wrote: post #64
bobwaycott wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, while there was an irrefutable bias in the DNC during the primaries, and shitty moves made against Sanders as a result of that bias, that is not the same thing in any way to rigging the primaries. That's a much stronger allegation with no evidence I've yet seen provided. The DNC was deplorable and idiotic in its rejection of Sanders and active working against his campaign. But the primaries were not rigged…

>leaks that targeted a single party and candidate? Is there any evidence to suggest that the DNC was singled out for attack? We should be careful not to fall victim to pernicious media spin. The claims laid out in the Grizzly Steppe report are very specific: 1. In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link ... 2. ...to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Govern…

> Is there any evidence to suggest that the DNC was singled out for attack?

I didn't say the DNC was singled out for attack. I said the leaks targeted them specifically. It's an intentional and notable distinction.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#103

Post by hackinthebochs »

bobwaycott wrote: post #100
hackinthebochs wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The DNC was deplorable and idiotic in its rejection of Sanders and active working against his campaign. But the primaries were not rigged. But they didn't do any of that either. It's amazing how out of control this narrative has gotten. And this is precisely why we can't justify these sorts of intrusions so close to an election, the stories become such distorted pictures of reality which is antithetical to to ration…

> But they didn't do any of that either. They most certainly did. DWS and company actively worked internally to disparage and scuttle the Sanders campaign and push HRC, ultimately resulting in DWS resigning in shame. The DNC leadership's bias was obvious, and the leaked emails that came out before the convention provided sufficient evidence that Sanders' supporters had been right about the DNC not playing fair with t…

This is absurd. It's clear that people at the DNC preferred Clinton. But the real question is what actions were taken to make Sanders less likely to become nominee? Absolutely none.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#104

Post by bobwaycott »

dilap wrote: post #50
bobwaycott wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, while there was an irrefutable bias in the DNC during the primaries, and shitty moves made against Sanders as a result of that bias, that is not the same thing in any way to rigging the primaries. That's a much stronger allegation with no evidence I've yet seen provided. The DNC was deplorable and idiotic in its rejection of Sanders and active working against his campaign. But the primaries were not rigged…

I agree not rigged, but giving Hillary debate questions in advance comes pretty close. In my opinion, the DNC emails and the Trump "grab 'em" tapes are similar -- you can argue that it's private material that should've stayed that way, but you can't argue that the material didn't reveal helpful truths about the candidates. Finally, a recent poll found 50% of Democrats think that Russia tampered with the vote tallies…

Agreed on the last part. I saw that poll, as well, and couldn't help but shake my head. There's a serious problem with not just the news, but the way people interpret the words used on the news in their own ways, and then spread that interpretation outward without there being any significant checks on the spin getting out of control.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#105

Post by bobwaycott »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #103
bobwaycott wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they didn't do any of that either. They most certainly did. DWS and company actively worked internally to disparage and scuttle the Sanders campaign and push HRC, ultimately resulting in DWS resigning in shame. The DNC leadership's bias was obvious, and the leaked emails that came out before the convention provided sufficient evidence that Sanders' supporters had been right about the DNC not playing fair with t…

This is absurd. It's clear that people at the DNC preferred Clinton. But the real question is what actions were taken to make Sanders less likely to become nominee? Absolutely none.

Oh, come on. You appear to either be unaware of the DNC's leaked emails before the convention, or are refusing to accept the information that is available and understand what I'm saying. There is a host of internal communication leaked specifically covering the internal conversations of DNC leadership focused on plans to scuttle Sanders campaign and candidacy throughout the primaries. The leaks were then added to the lawsuit that was being brought against the DNC and DWS on the eve of the convention. You can easily look this information up. It's neither absurd nor an out-of-control narrative. The actions people care about on this issue (which are separate from the election leaks people are currently talking about) are the ones that occurred within the DNC.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#106

Post by hackinthebochs »

bobwaycott wrote: post #105
hackinthebochs wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd. It's clear that people at the DNC preferred Clinton. But the real question is what actions were taken to make Sanders less likely to become nominee? Absolutely none.

Oh, come on. You appear to either be unaware of the DNC's leaked emails before the convention, or are refusing to accept the information that is available and understand what I'm saying. There is a host of internal communication leaked specifically covering the internal conversations of DNC leadership focused on plans to scuttle Sanders campaign and candidacy throughout the primaries. The leaks were then added to the…

I've seen the information, none of it represents anything they took action on. It's grasping at straws.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#107

Post by bobwaycott »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #106
bobwaycott wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come on. You appear to either be unaware of the DNC's leaked emails before the convention, or are refusing to accept the information that is available and understand what I'm saying. There is a host of internal communication leaked specifically covering the internal conversations of DNC leadership focused on plans to scuttle Sanders campaign and candidacy throughout the primaries. The leaks were then added to the…

I've seen the information, none of it represents anything they took action on. It's grasping at straws.

I'm not sure how to make my statements any clearer. I've even added emphasis to attempt to do so. The actions known about and discussed by which people are upset were actions within the DNC. Given that an action is something a person does, the content of the pre-convention leaked emails, and the act of writing and discussing the contents of those emails, constitutes actions within the DNC. You're attempting to dismiss this as non-action because there perhaps were not actions observable or taken outside the DNC. That's not what people are arguing in this case.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#108

Post by mSparks »

dang wrote: post #99
rahrahrah wrote: post #22

The poor man's hacking technique worked great. Instead of focusing on the tools, focus on the results. I bet you're one of those people who uses microservices to run his 100 visitors/day blog just because it's the shiniest new paradigm.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Please stop creating accounts to break the rules here with. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13288070 and marked it off-topic.

please take your life somewhere else.

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#109

Post by nl »

Natsu wrote: post #97
nl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there different levels of phishing, depending on the sophistication of the opposition. The GCHQ attacks on Belgacom[1] had a phishing component, but I suspect most people here would have fallen for them too. [1] https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-insid...

I'm having trouble finding the phishing there? There's a mention of QUANTUM INSERT replacing pages with malicious copies, but that appears to be a man-in-the-middle attack of some kind unless I'm completely misreading it. It also took them quite long to figure out what was going on.

Yes, you are probably right. I mis-remembered it as a spearphishing attack using a fake LinkedIn login.

Technically I guess it kind of is a fake LinkedIn login, but I think I'd be stretching the definition a fair bit...

Re: Critiques of the DHS and FBI’s Grizzly Steppe Report

#110

Post by Natsu »

nl wrote: post #109
Natsu wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble finding the phishing there? There's a mention of QUANTUM INSERT replacing pages with malicious copies, but that appears to be a man-in-the-middle attack of some kind unless I'm completely misreading it. It also took them quite long to figure out what was going on.

Yes, you are probably right. I mis-remembered it as a spearphishing attack using a fake LinkedIn login. Technically I guess it kind of is a fake LinkedIn login, but I think I'd be stretching the definition a fair bit...

Fair enough. Have an upvote for giving me some interesting reading, though!
Post reply on HN